# Prohibiting speech in the name of free speech. Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 1, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981 "2003-01-01T02:40:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/61 "2003-01-02T01:34:10Z")
You anti-abortion, er, that is, pro-license plate people are Just Not Getting It. I can see why you wouldn’t WANT to, so I’ll try to spell it out so any objective observers can figure it out for themselves: The problem is that the groups have to apply to the legislature for the license plate message they want. This means the government has the power to regulate speech, if only by denying those messages they don’t agree with. Whether or not it’s possible to get a pro-choice message approved by the South Carolina legislature is a moot point. Under the Constitution, the government is not supposed to be in the business of regulating speech. This is clearly a principle that is regularly and thoroughly violated by our government, as any atheist who has been forced to mouth the words “Under God” during the Pledge of Allegiance can tell you. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/62 "2003-01-02T16:44:56Z")
Here’s a link to an earlier article about the [preliminary injunction](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15396) that was issued early on in this case. It seems to me that the problem here is not that South Carolina allowed a “Choose Life” plate, but that the plate was approved/allowed by the Legislature, rather than because a nonprofit pro-life group applied to have a plate. By the Legislature making the decision to approve a “Choose Life” plate the government of South Carolina has, in fairly clear terms, gone beyond just creating a forum for speech on this issue; the government has abandoned neutrality in favor of one particular side of the issue. It’s more the “means” of these particular plates coming about than the “fact” that they came about, it seems to me. Either side of the issue is free to apply for their own membership-specific specialty plates, and that might not be a First Amendment problem at all. One other point that I noted from the article I linked above is the financial implications of these plates. According to the article: > [@](#): > > Money garnered from the plates would support private, nonprofit crisis-pregnancy programs. But organizations that provide or refer to abortions could not access the funds. As a result, the SC government’s decision to authorize “Choose Life” plates has a financial impact on groups like Planned Parenthood. I’m not sure how significant that becomes, but I didn’t get that from the OP article about this issue. Is there a reason this decision seems to be unavailable anywhere? I thought you could find everything on the internet nowadays? ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/63 "2003-01-02T17:08:04Z")
I bet if you applied for a vanity plate that said “PRO LIFE” you’d get turned down. Don’t states usually prohibit politically or religiously charged messages from plates? Geez. If you want to announce something political on your car, get a bumper sticker. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/64 "2003-01-02T17:27:06Z")
I would do a Google before you placed your bet. 🙂 From [article at freedomforum.org](http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16071) : > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court passed up a chance today to decide whether states have wide discretion to keep crude or contentious messages off personalized license plates. > > That means Mary Lewis gets to keep her Missouri plate, “ARYAN-1.” > > … > > The Missouri law, revised after Lewis won an initial legal fight to get her tag, says plates cannot be “obscene, profane, inflammatory or contrary to public policy.” Twenty-five states ban “offensive” messages, and other states have varying standards. Not sure how many of them would consider “Pro Life” offensive. There is a big difference between vanity plates and government selected slogan plates, imo. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/65 "2003-01-02T17:31:26Z")
BTW, personally I don’t much like that plates can’t be “contrary to public policy”(according to the article’s quote of the Missouri law). Isn’t challenging public policy the main selling point for free speech? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/66 "2003-01-02T21:16:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*Abortion debates inevitably turn to religion. The message is basically a religious one. \*\* First of all, your premise is invalid… and even if it weren’t, your conclusions would not follow. Abortion debates _frequently_ turn to religion, but they are not invariably based on it. There are, after all, people who object to abortion on non-religious grounds. One such person was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was still an atheist when he left NARAL. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Most pro-lifers are fundamentalist christians. Printing that message on license plates is establishing religion. \*\* Balderdash. Fundamentalist Christians may agree with the message, but that does not make the message inherently religous… and it most certainly does not amount to “establishing religion.” Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/67 "2003-01-02T22:04:46Z")
I think we can take a cue from a lil rabbit on this, “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.” I think if the state govt wanted to avoid constitutionality issues, they shouldve offered opposing sayings at the same time as the pro-lifers did, that way a forum advantage is not created. as far as prohibiting speech, the judge made no such ruling. He did not prevent pro-lifers from saing “choose life”, all he did is strike it from lisence plates. Bumper stickers are still a viable option for opinions and those were not prohibited. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981.md?page=3)